cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Allow sequence of SFM Search list of objects

Allow sequence of SFM Search list of objects

Allow sequence of SFM Search list of objects

When selecting the appropriate SFM/SVMX Searches for a specific config profile, the ability to indicate sequence or order of those searches would be extremely beneficial. Today it randomizes the list on both iPad and MFL for the same user and the UI is not the same even compared to the browser.

What is the underlying problem do you intend to solve with this idea?
-
How is the problem being addressed today, if at all?
-
Product Area?
Other
What version of ServiceMax are you on?
Summer 16
11 Comments
Roast Chef
Roast Chef

out of curiosity - anyone figure out what determines the current layout?

Is it CreatedDate of the search, LastModifiedDate, ProcessID.Name?

maybe the Process_number...?  [ex: PN-0000002291]

Roast Chef
Roast Chef

Current ordering process:

Ordered by CREATED DATE sorted by OLDEST FIRST

So in order to reorder currently, you would need to clone the searches in the order you want them to appear

Pastry Chef
Pastry Chef

I found that the order matches the order they are assigned to a group profile, so if you remove them all, then add them back one by one in the order you want, the mobile app respects this. You do this in SFM Searches > Manage Permissions. It was tested with an iPhone running Summer 16.

Roast Chef
Roast Chef

whenever i rearrange as you described, it reverts back once i reload the page.  Even tried saving after each remove/add, still same result :/

(could be because we are still on winter 15, or from using iPad vs iPhone)

Pastry Chef
Pastry Chef

We have upgraded from Summer16 to Winter17 and its doing the same for us too now! Very frustrating

Roast Chef
Roast Chef

This is the behavior in MFL as well.  Search SFM should be sortable and sticky.

Pastry Chef
Pastry Chef

Found a workaround for this issue for the iPhone Winter17 app (it may work for other mobile apps too!). Its clunky, but it works and solved the problem for us.

Create a list view on the "ServiceMax Processes object, with this filter criteria:

Save it, sort by Record ID and you will get a list like this:

I noticed that the order of the searches when sorted by record ID, matches exactly that of the mobile app:

Therefore the app must be using the default SF sort order (by record ID) when querying for searches and if you can control the order of the record ID's, you can control the order of the searches.

So the workaround is to delete all your searches in your QA environment (do this from the SFM Search page in SMX setup, NOT from the list view as this doesn't delete all related records), then re-migrate (using the migration tool - migrate.servicemax.com) from your DEV environment to your QA environment each search one by one, in the order that you want them to display. So migrate the search you want 1st in the list 1st, then the 2nd etc. Then when you migrate from QA to Production, you can do the same to get the order that you desire.

After each migration, use the list view you created above to check the record ID's that SF is auto creating are in the sequence you require. I found that occasionally SF would generate an out-of-sequence record ID, so if it does that, just delete the search then migrate it again.

Please note, you are not able to set a different sort order by group profile with this workaround, so the order you set will apply to all group profiles.

Let me know if this helps!

Roast Chef
Roast Chef

i came to the same conclusion - sorted by created Date (which is same as sorted by ID) - so above appears accurate workaround

Roast Chef
Roast Chef

Thanks Adam - we will give that a shot.  Definitely makes sense from logical perspective and also confirmed same behavior in our org.  Ramesh Kotamareddy

Pastry Chef
Pastry Chef

I found that the order of created date/time doesn't always match the order of record ID. Sometimes Salesforce generates ID's that are out of alphabetical sequence so you have to be really careful when migrating these searches to check how the ID's are being generated and matching the sort order you require. If it doesn't give you an ID in sequence, just delete the search and migrate it again and 99% of the time it will get the next sequential ID